1874.] H. Blochmann —Geography and History of Bengal. —No. II. 289 
and he seems to be the only Balbani prince whose name is remembered at 
the present day. 
Fi'ruz Shah (I) died in 717 or 718 A.H. (A.D. 1817 or 1318),* * * § and was 
succeeded by his eldest son, who took the title of Shihabuddm Bughra Shah. 
His coinage shews that he was king and held Lak’hnauti in 1318-19. Soon 
after his accession, Bughra Shah was attacked and defeated by Bahadur 
Shall.f Bughra Shah and his brother Nagiruddin managed to escape, and took 
refuge with Tughluq Shall, who in 1320 had mounted the throne of Dibit. 
Qutlu Khan was killed by Bahadur Shah; Hatim Khan’s fate is not known. 
From Bahadur Shah’s coinage we see that he was in undisturbed pos¬ 
session of Lak’hnauti during 1321. 
After 1321, however, the fugitive Nagiruddin appears to have gained 
influence in Lak’hnauti ; but it is quite possible that the precarious nature 
of his tenure caused him again to join his brother Bughra Shall as supplicant 
in Dihli. Ibn Batiitali at least says that it was at their instigation that 
Tughluq Shah invaded Bengal. When the imperial army left Dihli, Baha¬ 
dur Shah retreated to Sunargaon, and Nagiruddin left Lak’hnauti, joined 
the emperor at Tirliut, and accompanied him to Lak’hnauti, where Tughluq 
Shah confirmed him as governor of the province, and allowed him the use of 
the royal umbrella and the jewelled staff (which is carried before kings), 
because “ by his humility and submission he had established a preferential 
claim to the office.”]; Of Bughra Shah’s fate nothing is known. Tughluq now 
despatched his adopted son§ Tatar Khan, governor of Zafarabad (near 
* Mr. Thomas (Chronicles, pp. 194, 199) extends the reign of FIruz Shah to 722 ; 
but there are no coins for 719 and 721 ; Col. Bush’s specimen of 720 is very doubtful, to 
judge from the figure, and for 722 no figure has been given. 
f Bahadur Khan had the nickname of ‘ Bourali (ce mot signifie dans la langue in- 
dienne le noir )’—evidently the Hind. brownish. The Bibl. Indica edition of 
Badaoni (I, p. 224, middle) has evidently a mistake for Ibn Batutah’s 
Mr. Thomas (Chronicles, p. 197) calls Bughra Shah instead of 
—a typographical error. 
t This, I daresay, is the meaning of BaranI’s phrase (p. 451), Jcih dar itd'at o ban- 
dagi sabqat ncmmdah bud ; i. e. Bughra Shah, if still alive, was passed over. This 
explanation shews that the emendation of the texts of Baranl and Firishtah proposed by 
Mr. Thomas (Chronicles, pp. 188, 197) is not required. 
Firishtah, of course, confounds this Nagiruddin with Bughra Khan, and calls him 
“ the son of Balban.” But Balkan was born about 605 (A. D. 1208) ; and supposing that 
Buglna Ivhan was born in 635 a moderate estimate—he would have been about ninety 
years old, when Tughluq was in Lak’hnauti, and his advanced age would certainly have 
been remarked. 1 urtlier, Nagiruddin only received the province of Lak’hnauti, while 
Bughra Khan had ruled over the whole of Bengal; Bughra Khan’s reinstatement, there¬ 
fore, would have been a disgrace for an old man of illustrious descent. 
§ Pisar-khwandah, This word is pronounced without the Izafat, and 
means ‘ an adopted son,’ not ‘ a foster son.’ 
